HBO’s “Confirmation” on Justice Clarence Thomas Glosses Over Key Facts
The more you know
“Confirmation,” an original film by HBO airs Saturday night. Supposedly, the movie chronicles Justice Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court Confirmation hearings.
Many of the writers, producers, and actors in “Confirmation” are Democratic Party donors and loyalists, so the bias isn’t entirely shocking, but it is worth noting.
A site called Confirmation Biased is out to set the record straight. One of the film’s most egregious offenses is the omission of the numerous woman who testified on behalf of Justice Thomas’ character following the accusations made by Anita Hill.
Anyone familiar with Justice Thomas’ confirmation hearings knows many woman came to his aid.
Confirmation Biased also detailed 5 facts “Confirmation” left out:
Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
This is how they took down Herman Cain too
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that HBO would produce something so biased.
I’m going to go eat worms now!
Poor Anita was used and now resurrected for another 15 min of fame. After a few more dollars at her expense she will fade away. She cannot recant or stop humiliation that will follow the movie.
I suspect she had good reason to work so hard to maintain a low profile for the last 25 years. Seems like she wasn’t thrilled about this drama either. (Even HBO cannot bring themselves to suggest it is a documentary.)
Justice Thomas is one of the finest men to serve on the Supreme Court, both as to his integrity and to his legal mind.
(See the period?)
Agree completely which is why conservatives and Republicans must speak as one, condemning this disgraceful HBO smear.
Evidence showed that Hill was a stalker whose advances were not returned by her target.
But this won’t be in the HBO film.
Why would anyone who understands this is pure propaganda subscribe to HBO?
Read a book instead. Buy old movies on DVD. But stop funding the destruction of our country.
Hill’s legal career had been on a steep downward spiral before those hearings. Hill had been hired out of Yale by Wald, Harkrader and Ross, a large DC law firm. Justice Thomas heard of her when, after she had been at Wald for a couple of years, a classmate who had worked with her there suggested he hire her. She was not well liked by the rest of Thomas’s staff. Her job after leaving the federal government was as a legal writing instructor at a then unaccredited law school. Definitely a bottom of the barrel legal position for a Yale grad.
The hearings made Hill into a left wing cause and better job opportunities were soon hers.
Let me add that I got to sit across the dinner table from Robert Wald and his wife, Federal Appellate Judge Patricia Wald on several occasions in the early 1980s. He was the type of liberal who would have done a lot to make sure a black female associated hired by his firm succeeded.
I have never understood one thing about Anita Hill. She said Thomas sexually harassed her at the DoE Dept of Civil Rights around 1981. She then followed him when he went to EEOC in 1982.
When questioned on why she followed Thomas to the second job after he had already allegedly harassed her, she said she had wanted to work in the civil rights field, she had no alternative job, “and at that time, it appeared that the sexual overtures … had ended. (from Wikipedia).
If the harassment was as egregious as she claims, who in their right mind would choose to remain in such an environment! She said she had no alternative jobs, but she had a degree from YALE! The fact that she followed him should have disqualified her testimony immediately.
It reminds me of a comic speaking of couples that get divorced and later remarry. It’s like finding milk in your fridge that went bad, snifffing it, and putting it back in the fridge because it might be better tomorrow.
Lovin’ this post, the vids, and the links
Anita Hill had no case in the literal sense – she never filed a civil suit or sought a restraining order. She had neither witnesses nor supporting evidence. She never alleged any career harm nor unwanted contact. More than ten years had passed between the alleged incidents and her allegations. Yet she was had wide support from the Democrats and almost derailed a supreme court appointment. It was definitely a warning that worse was yet to come from them.